Alternate Theory of Gravity (split from "Puzzling Results From CERN")

[Reality Check]

Actually I tend to be reactive.
...

Actually you tend to make yourself seem ridiculous and ignorant since you cannot even state your theory and cannot get simple physics correct, e.g. that neutrinos are detectable regardless of their energy.

 

[DeathDart]

Since I am reactive this could be a bad interpretation of the CERN results. Though the conclusion has more support in other observations, such as stars not gravitationally collapsing with increasing velocity.

Even if it doesn't support shielding (? how) it would support separating gravitational mass from inertial mass. If gravitational mass is constant then inertial mass must exist in the space around the mass. A property of the space it is moving through.

Some of the math dealing with space may be coming to a conclusion that I will have to mull on for a while. it seems rather ....odd. So I would like to have at least some mathematics to back it up. Some observations also back up this conclusion, but I want more than observations. I am going to find something that makes mathematical sense.

I am also running into a few articles describing the Einstein field equations as being too difficult, but not any good reasons related to the problem. Some argue the math is misapplied or mis-characterized.

Making it coordinate independent may have made it worthless, it references nothing. You can't describe real problems with the math, it is too disconnected from anything.

Before you attempt to argue otherwise I would like responses from people who have actually used the Einstein Field Equations to solve something. If no one has used them, that doesn't bode well.

A tool that likes to chew on you without producing useful results, should get tossed.

 

[jsfisher]

Since I am reactive this could be a bad interpretation of the CERN results. Though the conclusion has more support in other observations, such as stars not gravitationally collapsing with increasing velocity.

You keep saying this, but why do you think it supports your fantasy? Do you really not understand the concept of relativity? Your motion relative to some star does not change the physics of what's going on at the star; it may, however, change what you observe.

If you want to claim otherwise, please show your work. (You know, that math stuff.)

 

[Reality Check]

Though the conclusion has more support in other observations, such as stars not gravitationally collapsing with increasing velocity.

What conclustion?

What do you mean by "not gravitationally collapsing with increasing velocity".
At first reading this is an idiotic statement since anything that gravitationally col lases has increasing velocity. A mass falling in a gravitational field always accelerates.

But it may be a display of ignorance - you think that the mass of stars as measured at the star increases with increasing velocity of the stars (relativistic mass increase). That is wrong. Relativistic mass increase is the increase in mass that an observer moving with a different velocity to the mass measures.
The mass of any star according to the star remains the same no matter how fast some other observer is moving.

 

[DeathDart]

You keep saying this, but why do you think it supports your fantasy? Do you really not understand the concept of relativity? Your motion relative to some star does not change the physics of what's going on at the star; it may, however, change what you observe.

If you want to claim otherwise, please show your work. (You know, that math stuff.)

e=mc² A mass converts to to this much energy Kg/m/sec/joule/larch trees

It is a lousy equation when determining both time dilation and energy.

A mass can have many more times it conversion energy, and it is still below the speed of light.

Energy e=mc² equivalent to a mass moving at c without any time dilation or inertial mass compensation.

Compare the two

e=mc² mv²
What happened to dividing by two in e=mc²?

If a mass has more energy (mass energy+kinetic energy) time expands to contain it.

The container of time allows mass at time =1 to equal the mass at velocity zero c²equivalent kinetic energy.

SQRT((c²+v²)/c²)= time (Equ. 1)

Time dilation >1

The energy increase c²+v² is split between time and inertial mass. The change in Inertial mass equals the expansion of time.

The numeric result according to Equ. 1 is also the same as the (inertial) mass increase. Because time did not expand at the full change in energy but at the square root of the energy increase. Mass (as inertial mass) has increased to obey conservation.

If gravitational mass always equals inertial mass, then the gravitational mass has increased the same amount as time has expanded.

So time has expanded and mass has expanded. So the nuclear reactions would take longer than normal to complete.

This would result in less energy being available to resist the increasing gravitational attraction.

If gravitational mass always equals inertial mass, then the gravitational mass has increased. When gravitational mass increases, the force of gravity increases.

This leads to a condition where the star will always collapse (at some point) will increasing velocity.

Therefore, Gravitational Mass does NOT always equal Inertial Mass.

FALSE Gravitational Mass always equals Inertial Mass

 

[DeathDart]

So the CERN experiment result does make sense, if the flow of time of Earth's mass is not affected by velocity.

If the time of the space containing Earth's mass did increase, the gravitational mass would increase.

So the clocks on the surface were affected by relativistic velocity, but the neutrinos (once at some depth within the Earth's mass) were not affected by relativistic velocity. With the effect of time dilation subtracted and the value of c being its full value. The neutrinos were traveling less than c within the Earth's mass. But compared to the surface they were traveling faster than c.

Time affects mass, if mass is constant, so is time.

As the size of a mass increases, it will force the flow of time closer to the constant value of 1

 

[Reality Check]

e=mc² A mass converts to to this much energy Kg/m/sec/joule/larch trees
...even more gibberish...

gibberish

 

[Reality Check]

So ...even more gibberish...

You seem to have the delusion that mass can be created.

 

[jsfisher]

e=mc² A mass converts to to this much energy Kg/m/sec/joule/larch trees

...<additional gibberish and confusion snipped>...

I asked if you understood relativity. A simple "no" would have sufficed.

 

[DeathDart]

You seem to have the delusion that mass can be created.

No the people who thought up gravitational mass equals inertial mass, were delusional.

But they had all that perfectly consistent data showing that the gravitational mass and inertial mass matched to e-13.

Obviously they were only looking under the street light. Did you lose your keys here? No I lost them over there, but there isn't any light over there.

So if anyone has any real questions, I might be back later.

 

[DeathDart]

Where in the experiment is the velocitiy of the Earth cited?
They will have taken in account the rotation of the Earth.

FYI: The average orbital speed of the Earth around the Sun is 29.78 km/s. But the velocity of the Sun is
[/SIZE]

Totaling that up can you get 2000 km/sec ?

 

[Reality Check]

Totaling that up can you get 2000 km/sec ?

Who would be idiotic enough to total those velocities?

 

[Reality Check]

No the people who thought up gravitational mass equals inertial mass, were delusional.

The people who thought up that thought up gravitational mass equals inertial mass are backed up by experiment as you then state.
You may want to try to understand what you write.

 

[jsfisher]

Who would be idiotic enough to total those velocities?

NASA, among others, but they all got a smaller figure. DeathDart continues to be in error with respect to facts.

 

[Reality Check]

NASA, among others, but they all got a smaller figure. DeathDart continues to be in error with respect to facts.

The figures that DeathDart thinks should be totalled are:

~220 km/s (orbit around the center of the Galaxy)
~20 km/s (relative to average velocity of other stars in stellar neighborhood)
~370 km/s[4] (relative to the cosmic microwave background)

These are independent speeds, e.g. you cannot have add the last 2 because that would be a speed relative to both the nearby stars and the CMB.

And DeathDart never noticed that I had mistakenly pasted these values twice!